Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Alia Altajir pleaded nolo contendere to charges of misconduct with a motor vehicle. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years' incarceration, suspended after one year, and five years of probation. Defendant later violated the special conditions of her probation. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the trial court admitted undated photographs gathered from Facebook, on which Defendant maintained a profile. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had violated her right to due process by admitting the photographs. The appellate court determined that this claim was unpreserved and did not merit review. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the photographs satisfied the minimum standard of reliability constitutionally required to admit evidence at the dispositional phase of a probation revocation hearing.

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, represented Plaintiff Robert Grimm in an action to dissolve Grimm's marriage. Plaintiff subsequently brought a legal malpractice action against Defendants. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for judgment because Plaintiff had not disclosed an expert when one was required and, therefore, could not establish a prima facie case for legal malpractice as to Defendants' breach of the standard of care. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the critical statements concerning Defendants made by the Court in its opinion affirming the underlying divorce action were not sufficient expert evidence of Defendants' malpractice; and (2) considering Defendants' motion for judgment the day after the motion was filed and the day before jury selection began in order to avoid the delay and expense of a trial in which Plaintiff could not present any evidence to support his claim.

Following a jury trial, Defendant John Papandrea was convicted of nine counts of larceny in the first degree. The appellate court affirmed. At trial, the state claimed that Defendant stole corporate funds from his employer in order to purchase artwork. Defendant conceded that he took the funds but asserted in his defense that he lacked the wrongful intent necessary for first degree larceny. At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court properly concluded that the State had presented sufficient evidence of Defendant's intent to commit larceny. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that Defendant had the necessary intent to commit larceny.

Petitioners, George Gould and Ronald Taylor, were arrested and charged with, inter alia, murder, felony murder, and robbery in the first degree. The jury acquitted Petitioners of the murder charge but convicted them on all of the other counts. Subsequently, Petitioners filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence. The habeas court granted the petitions and vacated the convictions, concluding that petitioners had established their entitlement to relief on the basis of actual innocence because two of the state's witnesses had recanted their testimony. Respondent, the commissioner of correction, appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the habeas court's judgments, holding that, under the test set forth in Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, actual innocence requires affirmative evidence that Petitioners did not commit the crimes of which they were convicted, not simply the discrediting of evidence on which the conviction rested. Remanded for a new trial under the proper standard.

Plaintiff and Defendant were former husband and wife. Following the dissolution of their marriage, Defendant was granted joint custody and visitation rights of the parties' two daughters. Defendant then reported that her eldest daughter had been sexually abused by Plaintiff. As a result of the investigation, Defendant was charged with risk of injury to a child, false reporting of an incident, false statement in the second degree, attempt to commit malicious prosecution, and sexual assault in the fourth degree. Following Defendant's guilty plea, Plaintiff filed a complaint sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly improperly applied the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff's claim was time barred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the appellate court improperly concluded that the existence of an original duty must be established before applying the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in a nonnegligence cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of possession of narcotics, possession of a controlled substance, interfering with an officer, and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence taken from the motor vehicle that Defendant was operating at the time of his arrest; (2) concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's conviction on the possessory charges; (3) admitting Defendant's unredacted medical records into evidence; and (4) instructing the jury as to the State's burden of proof.

Defendant pled guilty to sexual assault in the second degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court twice remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. At the hearing for resentencing upon the second remand, Defendant moved to withdraw his prior pleas, and the trial court denied his motion. On appeal, Defendant claimed the trial court should have granted his motion pursuant to Practice Book 39-26 and 39-27(2) as well as due process protections because the Supreme Court previously determined that his plea agreement resulted in an unenforceable illegal sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction to dismiss Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas, holding that Defendant's motion was beyond the scope of remand for resentencing and therefore should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography. As a condition of probation, Defendant was required to not possess or subscribe to any sexually stimulating material deemed inappropriate by probation officer. After finding Defendant violated his probation by visiting dating websites and possessing nude photographs, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the special condition was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague on its face and unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claim of unconstitutional overbreadth failed because because he did not allege a violation of his First Amendment rights; (2) there was no merit to Defendant's vagueness claim, and his as-applied vagueness claim failed under State v. Golding and the plain error doctrine; and (3) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding.

Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender for committing the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to ninety days' incarceration and a period of probation of two years. As a condition of probation, Defendant was ordered to make restitution to the victims in the amount of $2,000. Defendant appealed, arguing that since there was no evidence or finding that he had personally caused damage, the trial court's order to pay restitution was improper. The appellate court reversed the sentence imposed and remanded with direction to vacate the restitution order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because its order of restitution had a nexus to the crime of which Defendant was convicted and was, therefore, reasonably related to Defendant's rehabilitation.

Defendant David Sheriff was charged with several drug-related offenses. Flavio Bail Bonds executed a bail bond for Sheriff on each of the cases. After Sheriff failed to appear for the trial of the three cases, Flavio discovered that Sheriff had fled to Jamaica and remained there. The state subsequently declined to initiate extradition proceedings. Flavio filed a petition with the trial court for compromise or to release Flavio from its obligation on the bonds pursuant to Practice Book 38-23, which permits a court to relieve a surety of bond obligations after a showing of good cause. The trial court determined that Flavio had failed to establish good cause, and therefore, denied Flavio's petition. Flavio thereafter filed a writ of error. The Supreme court held that the trial court properly denied the petition and denied the writ, holding (1) the trial court applied the proper standard in making its determination, and (2) the trial court properly concluded that Flavio failed to show good cause under the rule.